Is natural - is good?

Not necessarily! There is a common misconception that “natural” substances – plant extracts, for example – are inherently better than man-made, or “chemical” substances.

In fact, this perception that ‘natural equals safe’ is sometimes exploited in marketing.

FACT: Natural substances are still chemicals – chemicalsfound in nature.Let’s think about some natural substances that could do a lot of harm.

Clostridium botulinum toxin – a naturally occurring substance and the most toxic substance known to man. One teaspoon could kill a quarter of the world’s population![1]

Death cap mushrooms – a meal prepared with these poisonous fungi killed two people in Canberra on New Year's Eve 2011.

Untreated water – containing pathogens that are estimated to annually cause, amongst other problems, 1.4 million child deaths from diarrhoea

In fact, according to the Royal Society of Chemists: “nature’s poisons outrank those synthesised by chemists, both in number and in toxicity”.[1]

Other experts share this view. 90% of surveyed toxicologists do not agree that natural products are “inherently safer than other products”.[2]

Dr Joe Schwarcz (McGill University, Canada) says one of the most persistent myths he’s encountered is “without a doubt…the widespread belief that if something is natural, it is safe and useful, and that if it is synthetic, it is toxic and questionable”.

And even anti-chemical campaigners agree that natural does not equate with safe. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and Environmental Working Group state that “just because a fragrance ingredient is derived from a plant or an animal source does not mean it is safe for everyone, since many all-natural and herbal products contain fragrance allergens”.[3]

FACT: There are several advantages to synthetic chemicalsChemicals made in a laboratory are called synthetic chemicals. Synthetic copies of chemicals that occur in nature are often called “nature-identical”. For example, Vitamin C is synthesised in the lab from glucose to give exactly the same substance as that found in nature.

Synthetic chemicals can in fact have a number of advantages over natural extracts:

The harvesting of substances directly from nature can, in some cases lead, to over-harvesting of limited natural resources, e.g. plants and marine organisms. This could in turn lead to disruption of ecosystems, loss of habitat and extinction.[4] By preparing the same chemical in a lab, there is reduced need to exploit and possibly decimate a natural source. (For example, during the height of commercial whaling in Australia in the 1800s, whale blubber was a major source of lamp fuel and lubricants and was also used in the making of soaps. It’s sobering to note that whaling continued in Australia until being finally outlawed in 1978.)

When commercial quantities of a natural substance are required, for example of a plant extract, the scale of agricultural production may require considerable resources, and may be unsustainable in the longer term.

Chemical production in a controlled environment can give a higher purity of product, whereas extracts from natural sources are inherently variable in composition and may contain many impurities.

Chemical synthesis allows access to a greater range of chemicals, including modified naturally-occurring chemicals (e.g. to decrease their toxicity, or to increase their efficacy) for a multitude of uses.

The bottom line: The origin of a substance is irrelevant in terms of its safetyThere are toxic, harmful and allergenic substances that are found in nature, as well as from the lab. It makes no difference where the substance originated!When determining the potential risk posed by any substance, its inherent properties (its hazard), and the level of exposure need to be considered together.